If you absolutely have to get from point A to point B with minimum hassle the superhighways serve a purpose, but I always hate driving on them. My wife and I are Colorado residents but nowadays we spend winters in Florida. The trip between points is roughly 2,000 miles and we have to drive it because were always carrying a load of stuff. What we normally do is break the trip into six days of roughly 300+ miles a day and drive the back roads, usually far off the freeways. The result is an American version of what youve described, with interesting lunches in small towns where all the locals look you over and size you up when you walk in, and pictures of the sort Ive attached. If you were to go as a photographer, the requirement to look outward instead of inward might make the trip a new beginning and might even enhance the lovely memories you speak of.

Best regards,

[attachment=14092:De_Funiak_Springs.jpg] [attachment=14091:Bar.jpg]

Russ, didnīt intend to be rude, but simply missed this post!

Your last sentence has a sort of irony to it: all those trips were also attempts to build up photo stock. However, as they were done in a manner that I thought might get them into libraries, they serve no purpose for me today. Now, my interests in photography are not really part of the commercial world, but probably totally self-centred.

However, whatīs also happening to me is that I am realising more and more that photography doesnīt always depend on going somewhere else; it could, if itīs a particular type of landscape or motif that is driving your search, but my own search right now is in the creation of colour patterns (with paint) which I then shoot on digital and mess about with in PS, ending up with something not always close to the original painting. But the original acts as a negative, if you will, or an outline; or even a throw of the dice, if you feel unkind!

An exciting development of this (for me), happened over the past two days. I was sitting on the terrace at home and thought I saw a butterfly having a rest. I bent down to see why it was so motionless, blew at it, and it just slid sideways. Dead. It looked so delicate lying there, so I thought Iīd incorporate it into one of my paint jobs. I picked it up and put it in the office. This morning, I started to scrape the old paint off the board I use as canvas, prior to spraying on some primer. As I scraped the old away, it struck me that the mess that was making might actually provide a much better foil to the delicacy of the butterfly, so I scraped no further and, sticking the corpse onto the board, took a few shots.

These were intended to be a vertical final print. So help me, the instant that the image came up on the monitor, everything changed!

Rather than a vertical shot of a butterly sitting on swatches of distressed paint, when seen as a horizontal, the thing shrieked bayou, boat and, finally, Charonīs Ferry! So thatīs how itīs going down.

Once I have it looking a bit more as I want it to, Iīll stick up a little jpeg here.

Which leads me to ask a further question of myself: is that art, photography or just divine intervention?

Referring to your other post and the pic of the aircraft; donīt feel bad, thatīs a much better īplane than my car is a car!

1. If WW2 was worth fighting, then so would WW3. Absurd isn't it? That's because we can't even if we want to. Better that way, yes?

2. Lincoln killed more Americans than all of America's foreign enemies combined. Some hero. Again, if they and we had the Hbomb, we could have skipped that one too. What a pity.

No solid answers? Sure there are, but you have to have imagination.

Dale, I donīt think this Ultimate Sanction theory holds water. There have been many skirmishes since the advent of The Bomb and there seems little sign of these diminishing. The only thing that such a weapon seems to do is prevent those who have them from going too far, one against the other, but they still test each other from time to time and the usual people pay the price.

A greater worry is perhaps the lack of common sense shown in the process of buying informant information. A secondīs pause would tell you that such people will sell you exactly what they think you want to buy. Did poor old Saddam actually have to die? For internecine killing, then perhaps, but not with our `helpī; for WMDs, absolutely not. Yet there I was, cheering on the Invasion and buying every lying word of the Blair government, a government I would never have voted for regardless!

It is my feeling that the only folks likely to actually deploy these terminal weapons are those who have a religious conviction that elsewhere is better than here. You canīt argue or discuss with that mindset and it is a weapon more frightening than any other. Frankly, there is no solution except education but that is the first victim of such regimes. As we see so plainly.

Regarding the American Civil War: it was a little before my time, regardless of what some think, but all the theorys here are wrong. Though I managed to avoid ALL the many opportunities to see Gone With The Wind I happen to know that the A Civ W was all about sex.

Dale, I donīt think this Ultimate Sanction theory holds water. There have been many skirmishes since the advent of The Bomb and there seems little sign of these diminishing. The only thing that such a weapon seems to do is prevent those who have them from going too far, one against the other, but they still test each other from time to time and the usual people pay the price. A greater worry is perhaps the lack of common sense shown in the process of buying informant information. A secondīs pause would tell you that such people will sell you exactly what they think you want to buy. Did poor old Saddam actually have to die? For internecine killing, then perhaps, but not with our `helpī; for WMDs, absolutely not. Yet there I was, cheering on the Invasion and buying every lying word of the Blair government, a government I would never have voted for regardless!It is my feeling that the only folks likely to actually deploy these terminal weapons are those who have a religious conviction that elsewhere is better than here. You canīt argue or discuss with that mindset and it is a weapon more frightening than any other. Frankly, there is no solution except education but that is the first victim of such regimes. As we see so plainly.Regarding the American Civil War: it was a little before my time, regardless of what some think, but all the theorys here are wrong. Though I managed to avoid ALL the many opportunities to see Gone With The Wind I happen to know that the A Civ W was all about sex.Rob C

You are obviously very astute as to the dirty little secrets of proxy war and so on. Obviously The Bomb has its limitations as the Great Equalizer (analogous to the American West), but nothing is perfect. The reason I added the comments about the little pamphlets is to offer insight that is missing in most of the armchair warriors' pronouncements.

Your last sentence has a sort of irony to it: all those trips were also attempts to build up photo stock. However, as they were done in a manner that I thought might get them into libraries, they serve no purpose for me today. Now, my interests in photography are not really part of the commercial world, but probably totally self-centred.

However, whatīs also happening to me is that I am realising more and more that photography doesnīt always depend on going somewhere else; it could, if itīs a particular type of landscape or motif that is driving your search, but my own search right now is in the creation of colour patterns (with paint) which I then shoot on digital and mess about with in PS, ending up with something not always close to the original painting. But the original acts as a negative, if you will, or an outline; or even a throw of the dice, if you feel unkind!

An exciting development of this (for me), happened over the past two days. I was sitting on the terrace at home and thought I saw a butterfly having a rest. I bent down to see why it was so motionless, blew at it, and it just slid sideways. Dead. It looked so delicate lying there, so I thought Iīd incorporate it into one of my paint jobs. I picked it up and put it in the office. This morning, I started to scrape the old paint off the board I use as canvas, prior to spraying on some primer. As I scraped the old away, it struck me that the mess that was making might actually provide a much better foil to the delicacy of the butterfly, so I scraped no further and, sticking the corpse onto the board, took a few shots.

These were intended to be a vertical final print. So help me, the instant that the image came up on the monitor, everything changed!

Rather than a vertical shot of a butterly sitting on swatches of distressed paint, when seen as a horizontal, the thing shrieked bayou, boat and, finally, Charonīs Ferry! So thatīs how itīs going down.

Once I have it looking a bit more as I want it to, Iīll stick up a little jpeg here.

Which leads me to ask a further question of myself: is that art, photography or just divine intervention?

Referring to your other post and the pic of the aircraft; donīt feel bad, thatīs a much better īplane than my car is a car!

Rob C

Rob,

Afraid I've missed a few posts too.

I tend to think most art is created by divine intervention.

I don't know whether or not I'd call what you're doing "photography," but, as I said in another thread, zooming in on the definition of a word like "photography" tends to lead to semantic quibbling, so I'm not going to give an opinion on that one. I'll be looking for the .jpeg of the result.

There's nothing wrong with self-centered photography. I think you could call most really good photography self-centered. I'm using the term, "self-centered" in the sense that it's not done under the constraints imposed by commercial requirements. Elliott Erwitt provides some good examples. Elliott wasn't independently wealthy as were some of the other Magnum stars, and he had to take on a variety of commercial jobs in order to stay solvent. As a result he constantly was traveling around the world and living in hotels. But when he'd discharged the day's job requirements he'd pick up his battered M4 and shoot things that made him happy. The results are some of my favorite photographs. There's a huge book titled Personal Best with a bunch of what Elliott felt were his best shots. If I'd been selecting what went into the book I'd have left out a few and put in a few that were left out, but overall it's probably my favorite collection of photographs. The man has a wonderful sense of humor. (No, Dale, Elliott's not a "dead dude." He's two years older than I am and very much alive.)

You're right. Good photography certainly doesn't depend on going somewhere else. HCB put his finger on it with his admonition that "looking is everything!" If you look, there are good, sometimes great, pictures all around you all the time. The great ones come far too infrequently, but they don't come at all of you don't look. On the other hand, I sometimes like to do what I did a couple years ago: get in the car and spend a few days on the back roads doing nothing but looking for moving remnants of our past. Part of the attraction is being alone with my thoughts, which blend with the countryside through which I'm passing. Then, to be brought to a stop by an abandoned farmhouse, brooding on the fields over which it once presided... and, as HCB said, to approach on tiptoe with the camera... that's best of all.

"Regarding the American Civil War: it was a little before my time, regardless of what some think, but all the theorys here are wrong. Though I managed to avoid ALL the many opportunities to see Gone With The Wind I happen to know that the A Civ W was all about sex."

"I don't know whether or not I'd call what you're doing "photography," but, as I said in another thread, zooming in on the definition of a word like "photography" tends to lead to semantic quibbling, so I'm not going to give an opinion on that one. I'll be looking for the .jpeg of the result."

Against my better judgement, I post this jpeg of the butterfly. The point of it was that when originally conceived, it was going to be a vertical of the critter dead against some distressed paint. However, as it first appeared on the monitor in horizontal format, my whole concept of it changed instantly and it became dead flutterby on raft in swamp. Or more politely, crossing from one level to the other via Charonīs Ferry. A bit harsh small, it does A3+ more gently...

That's a lovely, evocative image, Rob. You can call it whatever you want, IMHO. Perhaps "Butterflyography?"

Well, thanks, but the thing about it is that it was meant to be a vertical, and it was a vertical until I saw it on the screen. Iīm not sure how much credit I should feel for it, other than Iīm sort of pleased to be able to abandon a preconception when I see something better!

Well, thanks, but the thing about it is that it was meant to be a vertical, and it was a vertical until I saw it on the screen. Iīm not sure how much credit I should feel for it, other than Iīm sort of pleased to be able to abandon a preconception when I see something better!

Ciao - Rob C

"...meant to be..." by whom? By God?

IMHO (and I'm not the first to say this), a mature artist is one who can accept and be thankful for the lucky accidents. You were, after all, the one who saw its potential as a horizontal.

It's nice when one's original conception works out. But it's also quite nice to notice when an improvement can be made.

Well, thanks, but the thing about it is that it was meant to be a vertical, and it was a vertical until I saw it on the screen. Iīm not sure how much credit I should feel for it, other than Iīm sort of pleased to be able to abandon a preconception when I see something better!

Ciao - Rob C

I'll reiterate: As HCB said, "looking is everything!" You looked.

But the preconception thing leads me to another lecture: One of the mistakes a lot of photographers (and scientists) make is to approach the world with a preconception. The burden of HCB's argument, and I agree with him, is that though you need to approach a project with some idea of what you're after, when you photograph you shouldn't be thinking. You should be reacting. The best photographs are made in a flash. That doesn't mean you have to lift the camera, frame, and shoot in a single motion, though on the street that's exactly what you have to do. With a landscape you may have to set up a tripod, mount the camera, frame the shot, load a film holder if you're shooting with a stand camera, or set your DSLR for mirror-up shooting, and then shoot. But if it's going to be a good photograph you'll already have seen it and visualized it as a print before you ever take the tripod out of the car.

In this case you couldn't do that because the elements weren't there until you set up the camera. When you looked, you saw.

What is revisionism anyway? An attempt to wrongly interpret, or an attempt to set the record straight? Both cases can be true - you can't make a blanket statement that revisionism is wrong.

Besides, it's easy to say that "slavery was the cause" and let it go at that, but that's hardly the case - the things the North fought for (pro-business control) were never in the interest of freeing the oppressed. The actual "reason" was those little pamphlets being distributed in the South by those pesky abolitionists, describing explicitly how the oppressed can throw off their oppressors, and naturally, the legislators were all having a cow, and with the unwillingness of the federal government to intervene, they withdrew from the union. Publishing and distributing such pamphlets today is highly illegal, as Paladin Press discovered in a major loss to them a few years back.

Dale, I realize your comment was largely rhetorical. But its a fair question with perhaps an unobvious answer.

[rant]

There is a historical study called historiography. Within this study there has been a lot of discussion about what constitutes both history in general and particular to this conversation, what is considered revisionist history. There is no simple answer.

There was a time long ago when a somewhat arbitrary distinction existed between what was considered primary and secondary evidence. A strict interpretation of history at one point in time would include only primary documents or sources be used as evidence. Naturally, over time the number and types of what are considered primary documents have grown enormously and along with that has been a revision in what is considered primary documents. Anyone not asleep at this point may chuckle at the banal implication being that there were revisions in defining revisionist history.

Changes were due to the advance of historical study as a science. These changes lead to contemporary views where the term revisionist may generally applied when one imposes a criteria that was not considered relevant at the time. But you have to be careful how you go about it.

Heres an example that some would consider revisionist, but which is not: As many know, many battles of the war and other scenes from the war period itself were the first examples of photo-journalism of a war period. As many know, many battles of the war and other scenes from the war period itself were the first such photo-journalism of a war period. A modern scholar may research the role of photography in advancing the public perceptions of Civil War. At the time of the war, not a lot of people thought of the camera as a political tool, rather they saw it as a means of conveying the truth. Based on this, using primary evidence to shed light on the photograph as a political tool may be considered revisionist.

Using the technique of statistical sampling, applied to images taken at the time and shown in newspapers and other sources, we may find out that some dominant number of the images portrayed southerners as inept losers. Now I havent actually seen such a study, but the point is this kind of study may be considered revisionist history, but it is not as it combines primary evidence with modern research techniques.

Now an example from this period that is considered revisionist is to discuss the war as a motor force in advancing equality. Many today may think the Civil War was all about advancing racial equality. Yet at the time, almost no-one thought that slaves were equal. Still, today, Lincoln is hailed by some as advancing the causes of racial equality. In a way he did do this, but it was coincidental and laughable to say this was part of the reasoning for the war. Stating the war was about advancing equality is a clear case of revisionist history.

... my own search right now is in the creation of colour patterns (with paint) which I then shoot on digital and mess about with in PS, ending up with something not always close to the original painting. But the original acts as a negative, if you will, or an outline; or even a throw of the dice, if you feel unkind!Rob C

Rob, your butterfly integrated with the distressed paint makes a strong aesthetic statement, probably not expressible in words. Your artistic challenge based on color patterns which are then photographed and manipulated in PS in a way are parallel to something I have been doing for the past few years. I look for something to photograph that has strong color, strong shapes or striking lines which I can then operate on to produce abstractions of greater or lesser degree depending on the subject. I don't like to get into the arguments about what is photography so I just refer to them as images, or pictures.

The first consists of 3 segments of an old gate at the Asbury Park, NJ convention center. The second is the Queensborough Bridge next to the chimneys of a 19th century building right next to it, and the third is an abstract in which you can still make out the structure of an archway at the Cloisters, in Manhattan.

Dale, I realize your comment was largely rhetorical. But its a fair question with perhaps an unobvious answer.

[rant]

There is a historical study called historiography. Within this study there has been a lot of discussion about what constitutes both history in general and particular to this conversation, what is considered revisionist history. There is no simple answer.

There was a time long ago when a somewhat arbitrary distinction existed between what was considered primary and secondary evidence. A strict interpretation of history at one point in time would include only primary documents or sources be used as evidence. Naturally, over time the number and types of what are considered primary documents have grown enormously and along with that has been a revision in what is considered primary documents. Anyone not asleep at this point may chuckle at the banal implication being that there were revisions in defining revisionist history.

Changes were due to the advance of historical study as a science. These changes lead to contemporary views where the term revisionist may generally applied when one imposes a criteria that was not considered relevant at the time. But you have to be careful how you go about it.

Heres an example that some would consider revisionist, but which is not: As many know, many battles of the war and other scenes from the war period itself were the first examples of photo-journalism of a war period. As many know, many battles of the war and other scenes from the war period itself were the first such photo-journalism of a war period. A modern scholar may research the role of photography in advancing the public perceptions of Civil War. At the time of the war, not a lot of people thought of the camera as a political tool, rather they saw it as a means of conveying the truth. Based on this, using primary evidence to shed light on the photograph as a political tool may be considered revisionist.

Using the technique of statistical sampling, applied to images taken at the time and shown in newspapers and other sources, we may find out that some dominant number of the images portrayed southerners as inept losers. Now I havent actually seen such a study, but the point is this kind of study may be considered revisionist history, but it is not as it combines primary evidence with modern research techniques.

Now an example from this period that is considered revisionist is to discuss the war as a motor force in advancing equality. Many today may think the Civil War was all about advancing racial equality. Yet at the time, almost no-one thought that slaves were equal. Still, today, Lincoln is hailed by some as advancing the causes of racial equality. In a way he did do this, but it was coincidental and laughable to say this was part of the reasoning for the war. Stating the war was about advancing equality is a clear case of revisionist history.[/rant]

It's a shame to rant like that just to expound a common academic (yawn) point of view. Lincoln is in fact *perceived* as ambivalent on slavery, yet few people seem to understand his true feelings for abolition - and he had radical feelings along that line. The master politician merely hid them well.

And to Southern == ignorance - this is widely believed in Southern California, in academia, broadcast on their radio outlets. It ignores TVA, Oak Ridge, Huntsville, Boca Raton, i.e. most of the great technology of the 20th century. One of the reasons I enjoyed working in SoCal was the lack of competition and the ease of making money.